affiliate_partnerize-advertiser_list_programmes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array of Programme records and covers both joined and available programmes, but the 'or' phrasing is ambiguous about whether both are included. It does not mention pagination, required brand authorization, or other behavioral details beyond the basic return shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose first, then concrete usage triggers, then return type and related tools. Every sentence adds value, and the text is easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It covers the core use case and return type, but omits required parameter semantics, filter behavior, pagination, and output fields. The companion tool hints are useful, but they do not compensate for the missing operational details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters, including the required 'brand'. The agent is left without guidance on what values to provide for brand, status, limit, cursor, offset, search, or categories. This is a significant gap for a tool with a mandatory parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('List affiliate programmes') with a clear scope ('the publisher has joined on Partnerize (Advertiser) or which are available to join'). It also gives example user queries, which helps disambiguate intent. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling affiliate_partnerize_list_programmes, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit trigger phrases ('when the user asks...') and suggests natural companion tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity). It does not state when not to use the tool or name an alternative list_programmes tool, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.